Description

In this competency, I learned how to employ various teaching principles and strategies in discipline-specific themes. In Neuroscience, my discipline, students learn the basics of biology, biochemistry, brain anatomy, brain physiology, and a modicum of pharmacology. Furthermore, students are exposed to the foundation of scientific research, such as experimental design, statistics and data analysis, and academic writing. Therefore, throughout this competency, I needed to bear in mind the foundational knowledge students should acquire while planning a course, articulating learning objectives, and designing activities. In other words, disciplinary content is pivotal to implementing effective pedagogical practices to achieve desired learning goals. Accordingly, I should be wary of the abstract or quixotic teaching strategies that are not applicable to neuroscience. 

As an instructor, I want students, for instance, to envision the brain cell (neuron) and connect disparate biological processes and pathways together. That ultimate objective will guide me to formulate pertinent learning goals and activities. By and large, impactful pedagogical strategies primarily hinge on the unique disciplinary content students should attain at the end of each class. 

By leveraging the resources I learned about in the three courses, I gained a deeper understanding of the pressing need to shift from conventional instructor-centered to student-centered pedagogy. Before taking these courses, I mistakenly assumed that pedagogical practices were innate dispositions that could not be cultivated. However, I readily changed my view once I delved into evidence-based effective pedagogical practices.

In ISE 870, I had a hands-on experience, through various activities, with the effectual application of student-centered modality. From my own experience as a student, in the conventional instructor-centered classes, students are nothing short of passive recipients with no tangible role in the classroom. This approach largely focuses on the content the instructor strives to cover without reality-checking whether students internalize and comprehend that content. 

Backward design is a cornerstone of the student-centered teaching strategy. I first learned about backward design in the introductory MOOC and applied it to ISE 870 class. As a researcher, I find backward design intuitive. Posing a testable hypothesis that fills a knowledge gap is the first stage of experimental research. This stage corresponds to the first step in the backward design that is determining the ultimate learning goals. Suffice it to say that successful publishable research cannot be executed without initially specifying the hypothesis, which guides the next steps, nor can successful pedagogy. The second stage of scientific research is to identify what data are requisite to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In other words, what evidence that if available will answer the scientific question. That aligns with the second step in backward design whereby the assessments required to ensure that students have achieved the goals are determined. Finally, in research, we create the adequate experimental design and select techniques that will collect that evidence. By the same token, the last step in backward design is designing instructional materials and activities. After learning the importance and applicability of the backward design, I now consider the traditional way of designing a course indeed backward. The traditional way of designing courses is abortive and does not support achieving learning goals. In contrast, when a class commences with dismantling the intended learning goals, students will attend the class with clear expectations. Hence, students will readily undertake required tasks and activities. Backward design is beneficial also for me as an instructor. By defining goals, I can adequately evaluate what and how much information I want students to gain during class. In addition, backward design allows proper selection of instructional activities that align with goals within the allotted timeline for the course. All in all, backward design in my point of view is de rigueur for a fruitful pedagog.

In the advanced MOOC, I realized that student-centered pedagogy is quite diverse and indeed malleable to different contexts and class sizes. In large classes, for example, I can hinge more on collaborative problem-based learning (PBL). PBL depends on posing open-ended questions that spur students to search, critique, write, and analyze to address this problem. One appeal of PBL is that it exhorts students to steer their own learning and not the instructor. Nevertheless, a potential challenge an instructor could face with PBL is selecting the optimum assessment tool that can detect whether students acquire the intended skills. A possible approach is to use a standardized rubric. I used this approach in my mentored teaching project. 

To leverage students' prolificity, I learned that instructor should diversify instructional activities and assessments to target different cognitive levels from simple recall to higher-order thinking skills. To this end, Bloom’s taxonomy has been a valuable tool in developing my lesson plans. 

Surfacing background knowledge and pertinent misconceptions is paramount for effective teaching. In most cases, I might teach a diverse group of students from various disciplines with different beliefs. Uncovering misconceptions is crucial because they can interfere with students’ learning. Importantly, by assessing prior knowledge, I can realistically sense what students already know and what they need to learn. In this way, I can tailor my lesson plans to meet the specific needs of my students. Conversely, assuming that students have equivalent levels of background knowledge exacts a heavy toll on students' learning and engagement in class. Some students could feel lost and overlooked. Hence, background knowledge and misconception should be brought up early in class before introducing novel content. Examples of ways to achieve that purpose are clicker questions, pre-class mini quiz, or writing minute papers. This is by no means an easy mission to achieve. Eminent instructors have told me that this could be one of the hardest things to tackle in teaching. After all, with experiential learning, I will identify the most common misconceptions in my field and enrich my repertoire with strategies to address them. 

As I mentioned earlier, assessment should be aligned with goals and teaching activities. In fact, summative assessment was principal during my undergraduate studies and later in my teaching experience. This traditional approach of distilling student's year-long effort into a single high-stakes final exam is not propitious for students’ learning. Therefore, summative assessment should be interspersed with formative assessment throughout the course. Formative assessment offers a practical direct way for instructors to reality-check students' comprehension and pinpoint areas where they need more help. Notably, multiple formative assessments will lessen the prodigious burden of taking a single final exam. It should not escape our attention that formative assessment could be graded or ungraded based on the goals. In ISE 870, I learned that formative assessment could be as simple as a quick quiz at the beginning of a class and not necessarily a formal exam. 

I learned about theories of understanding in ISE870, which underpin eclectic motivation levels among students. A student might be "deep learner" or "strategic learner". Deep learner alludes to students who are intrinsically motivated by their desire to learn and grow. On the other hand, strategic learners are those who are extrinsically motivated by rewards as high grades or approval. I believe students' learning is not dichotomous in that sense. However, bearing in mind that students from different backgrounds will not be equally motivated is crucial to shape an effectual pedagogical strategy. In my past teaching experience, I mistakenly assumed that all students should be inherently motivated to learn and seek knowledge. That assumption primarily stemmed from my lack of knowledge on how to motivate students. This brings us to the importance of the affective domain in learning and strategies to engage students. I have found that creating a link between class content and real life enhances students' engagement and motivation to learn more. When students can envision the value of what they learn, they are more likely to engage. 

In ISE 870, I designed a neuroscience-related course syllabus. This was an invaluable experience because I got the opportunity to practice thinking broadly about an entire course. Furthermore, I realized that the syllabus is like a contract between me as an instructor and students. All details should be clear and realistic. Moreover, I recognized that it is important to consider the institution's vision when writing the syllabus (as I delineated in Core Competency of Understanding University Context). In this training, I reviewed a few policies at Michigan State University to ensure that the syllabus is aligned with them. Overall, I think in this project I gained the foundational skills to design a course, write a syllabus, review institutional polices, and reevaluate the amount and quality of material I want to teach students.

Through those three courses, I appreciate that student-centered teaching is worth implementing these days, as opposed to instructor-centered pedagogy. All the activities and projects completed during courses, I believe, honed my future assets as an instructor.